Question:
Discuss the principles of criminal law?
Answer:
Issue
David and Eugene leave the club angrily and decide to revenge Benjamin and Chris for teaching them a lesson. Eugene angrily pushes them and by mistake enters by flick in Chris’s face and as a result Chris dies. However, when Chris was in hospital he refused the services of the nurse and due to continuous bleeding Chris dies. On the way back from Jermaine’s house Fred receives a phone call from Ricky asking for some heroin and so he delivers the heroin to Ricky’s house. Fred stays at the house for a chat whilst Ricky injects the drug. Suddenly Ricky becomes extremely ill and collapses on the floor. Realizing that Ricky has over dosed, Fred panics and leaves the house without calling for medical help. The following day Ricky’s housemate discovers him dead on the living room floor. Based on the facts here the issue that arises is whether Eugene and Fred can be charged for murder or not.
Relevant Rules and Procedures:
Murder is the most common kind of crime in England and Wales. It is viewed as the most common type of crime in the United Kingdom. For any action to quantity to murder, a person should illegally slaughter another with the intention of causing harm. The element of intention was termed initially as malicious intent despite the fact that is required neither malice nor premeditation[1].
Since murder is for the most part characterized in law as an expectation to bring about genuine damage or harm (alone or with others), consolidated with the aim of causing harm to another, there are few situations where a death will be dealt with as murder regardless of the fact that the litigant did not wish to execute the real casualty. This is called “transferred malice”, and emerges in two normal situations: –
The respondent planned genuine mischief to one or more persons, however unintended other individual[2];
A few individuals share a purpose to do genuine damage, and because of the harm that one causes the other person dies then in such a situation it is to treated as murder[3].
A further noteworthy principle is that, the lawful offense murder principle, was nullified in the Homicide Act 1957. Until annulment, the impact of this standard had been to make murder offenses in two cases: when murder happens over the span of a wrongdoing it could in specific cases be naturally renamed by law as homicide, and that any passings coming about because of demonstrations of a criminal mind in the middle of the the wrongdoing could bring about culpability as homicide with respect to all his or her kindred culprits. The impact of this principle are halfway held in spite of abrogation, since aim to kill the person is little more than expressed – expectation (counting basic aim) to bring about genuine harm is adequate for homicide if passing results. “Unlawfully” implies without legitimate avocation or reason[4].
For a homicide to quantity to murder by a respondent, at the period of demise the litigant’s demonstrations or oversights must be the working and most significant reason for death with no novus actus interveniens (Latin for “new act softening up”) to shatter the chain of causes. In this way, the respondent can’t pick how the casualty is to act, or what identity to have. Regardless of whether valiant or stupid, the respondent must anticipate that the casualty will:
Try to escape after causing death to another or if the action is linked up due to various chain of actions.
Try to fight back and escalate the extent of violence between them
Seek medical handling for the wounds caused or even ask for medical assistance, this situation will not break the cause of action unless the mistake becomes more considerable that causing death[5].”
Application and Conclusion:
In the present scenario also, Eugene has been charged with murder and have to bear the consequences as well for attempt of murder. Under English law, transferred malice states that the person who intentionally commis an offence and causes harm to another may be charged with the crime of murder. This is one of the main element for a homicide to become murder.In the present scenario also, intent was their in the heart of Eugene to cause harm to Chris. However, there was no intention on the part of Fred to cause harm to Ricky. It was Ricky’s own choice to comsume Herion. Haiving been overdosed he consequently fell ill and died. Therefore, intention is created only in the case of Eugene and not Fred. However, Eugene can defend himself saying that his gesture was simply friendly and he had no intention of killing Chris. It was Chris’s own decision to not to resort to the services provided by the Nurse.
Another essential element for any act to amount to murder is common intent. Common intent means a person being responsible for murder shall be held liable for the illegal actions even if it is not agreed or planned. In the present scenario there are less chances of securing evidence on behalf of Eugene and Fred.
In the case of R V. Jordan, it was held that in situations where certain actions are foreseeable then that will also maintain a chain. Only in exceptional cases, by which a third party places the unique attack as a merely backdrop circumstance, or some unsaid usual occurrence that will smash the sequence[6].
Reference List:
Ashworth, Andrew, and Jeremy Horder. Principles of criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Brake, Mike. Comparative youth culture: The sociology of youth cultures and youth subcultures in America, Britain and Canada. Routledge, 2013.
Burchell, Jonathan M. Principles of criminal law. Juta and Company Ltd, 2013.
Chadwick, Ruth, Mairi Levitt, and Darren Shickle, eds. The right to know and the right not to know: genetic privacy and responsibility. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Cryer, Robert, et al. An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Herring, Jonathan. Criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.
Stephen, James Fitzjames. A history of the criminal law of England. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
[1] Cryer, Robert, et al. An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
[2] Brake, Mike. Comparative youth culture: The sociology of youth cultures and youth subcultures in America, Britain and Canada. Routledge, 2013.
[3] Cryer, Robert, et al. An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
[4] Burchell, Jonathan M. Principles of criminal law. Juta and Company Ltd, 2013.
[5] Stephen, James Fitzjames. A history of the criminal law of England. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
[6] Brake, Mike. Comparative youth culture: The sociology of youth cultures and youth subcultures in America, Britain and Canada. Routledge, 2013.
